From owner-freebsd-isp  Tue Feb 18 06:36:24 1997
Return-Path: <owner-isp>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA07015
          for isp-outgoing; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 06:36:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.intercenter.net (mir.intercenter.net [207.211.128.20])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA07009
          for <freebsd-isp@freebsd.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 06:36:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 18722 invoked from network); 18 Feb 1997 14:36:21 -0000
Received: from bigboy.intercenter.net (207.211.128.17)
  by mir.intercenter.net with SMTP; 18 Feb 1997 14:36:21 -0000
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:36:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Ron Bickers <rbickers@intercenter.net>
To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Apache Virtual Servers (single IP)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.93.970217204721.27674M-100000@sidhe.memra.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.95.970218090410.1218H-100000@bigboy.intercenter.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Michael Dillon wrote:

> It's not silly. ISP's have been selling a specific bundle of services
> under the name "virtual domain" for almost three years now. This requires
> that each virtual domain have a globally unique IP address allocated to
> it. 

Just like dialup use to "require" an IP address per customer. 

> Some people are suggesting that they can continue to use this name for a
> different service in which they do not use a globally unique IP address.
> But by doing so, they ensure that a significant percentage of WWW browsers
> cannot reach the domain. Since the ISP has no way of knowing the intended
> audience for a website they also have no way to predict what percentage of
> WWW browsers cannot reach the site. In addition, the search engines that
> use webcrawlers will not index these sites.

I can only agree with this today, but again, we're moving forward. It
sounds like some search engines need to do the same.

> countries, it simply does not make any sense for an ISP to offer a virtual
> domain without also allocating a globally unique IP address.

It's increasingly not making sense to use multiple addresses.

> HTTP 1.1 host header support is a neat bit of technology but it
> has no place in the ISP business today.

Just like audio on demand, video on demand, java, and a whole slew of
other neat bits of technology, the use of a single IP for virtual hosting
will soon spread like kudzu.

Ron